We have been well served ;-) Oh and I don't think it is a fair argument at all, the right that we the voters need to know why the sales must be enacted in order to make an informed vote, overrides the outcome of said sales, in my view. Because, since when in NZ legislation does it say the market must rule?

Chief High Court judge Justice Helen Winkelmann delivered her decision today saying she declined to make the declaration as it would amount to a "mini-trial" in advance of a police investigation into the matter.

The application has been declined, but that doesn't actually amount to a decalaration that says that the conversation was private.

What it effectively means is that any sort of resolution won't happen before Saturday.

If it was an honest attempt by Key et al we should have been kept up to date all the way through. Most people would accept that there would be some details that couldn't be made public but if this really is the pot of gold that we are being told that it is then I think we are owed the courtesy of being informed.I hope that the real government of NZ is being consulted. Will no one think of Warner Brothers!?!?!?

Unless the quantum superposition of the privacy of the conversation collapses by someone just hardening up and posting it in its naked glory.

THis is the bit that gets me: it's a scoop in the truest sense of the term yet the HoS asks permission? Whatever happened to "publish and be damned"? Can you imagine the British or Aussie press being so pusillanimous in a similar situation? It's a political meeting held in full view to decide who gets to control $75 billion a year in spending and that's private? WOnder who it was who didn't include a "public interest" defence?

Unless the quantum superposition of the privacy of the conversation collapses by someone just hardening up and posting it in its naked glory.

Unless one or more of the mainstream media outlets grow a pair and do exactly that, I doubt it'll make a difference.

I'd guess not all that high a percentage of the population would actively seek out a recording or transcript hosted offshore, but it's hard to avoid if it's leading the 6.00 news or printed on the front page.

I've got a suggestion - the next time you want to be brave with other people's reputations and livelihoods put your money where your mouth is. And, quite frankly, do think "publish and damn the consequences" is a big part of what's wrong with tabloid media culture in the UK?

I'd guess not all that high a percentage of the population would actively seek out a recording or transcript hosted offshore

Interesting point, especially when you consider TV3's link to Fairfax and that the HoS has overseas owners. I would have though it would be a simple matter for the transcript to "accidentally" appear overseas.

The other point that comes to mind is when are the Police going to execute their search warrants? Or is that also something that will be resolved after the weekend?

The cynic in me says that no-one in the media wants to press the matter either because they're owned by the Govt (RNZ and TVNZ) or have been bailed out by the Govt (Mediaworks) or just don't want to get offside (HoS). Dispiriting, really particularly as I'm pretty certain what's on the tapes is mostly petty gossip.

And, quite frankly, do think “publish and damn the consequences” is a big part of what’s wrong with tabloid media culture in the UK?

The key word there is "tabloid" and I'd agree with you that there's a problem in the UK but that's not the issue at hand here. You'll also recall that the lawyer for Milly Dowler's family thought any comparison was wrong.

Trivialising what news is by turning papers into entertainment and gossip is the main driver of the low end papers problems in the UK.Withholding some genuine public interest information is only an embarassment to the Governing classes. In my opinion the insight and importance of the 'tea tapes' or whatever the crap they're known as falls firmly into the publish and be damned folder.God alone knows our papers are turning into gossip rags enough already but not having the intestinal fortitude to break and or investigate important stories is not helpful to us as a society.If the same scenario had occurred in regard of Phil Goff or any other party leader I don't imagine the line taken by National would include anything in regard of protecting the public from having their private suicide conversations being exposed.Yes there has been a lot of flatulance and humbug from all sides in regard of this, but its value as an insight into our leaders thinking and mores has been suppressed.I know your opinion on this differs to mine Craig but I'm sure we can both cope with that.

I'd guess not all that high a percentage of the population would actively seek out a recording or transcript hosted offshore, but it's hard to avoid if it's leading the 6.00 news or printed on the front page.

Yup, it's down to the big boyz or it won't happen. Which means it won't happen. Which means in retrospect, the strategy of aggressively hiding something that is hardly even news has paid off dividends for National, mostly because no voters are swayed by the tea scandal, and nothing else was being covered in great depth. It checked the steep decline their polling was indicating.

It's not over yet, though. Undecideds can swing the government either way. Two days could also be a long time in politics.

And, quite frankly, do think “publish and damn the consequences” is a big part of what’s wrong with tabloid media culture in the UK?

ooo goody can we also have a slippery slope argument as well.

It's a frigging meeting between two politicians that was staged event from go to whoa. They then said some stupid shit without making certain the mics were off or here's a thought going somewhere private.

How it isn't a proper subject for the public is beyond me but I'm sure you can come up with another slippery slope argument or a sneer about mere posters not being people with real jobs in the media.

Sure it would have cost money to defend and it would have cost brownie points with the man who is clearly going to be the next PM of NZ - but frankly we used to have a media willing to take that kind of punt for the public interest.

I find the fascination about what Key and Banks talked about a diversion. Banks has been explicit on his views of democacy. He joined a party that in its manifesto says;

'Cannabis legislation is a human rights issue. ACT believes that the State should not interfere with the informed choices of adults which do not damage others. Freedom applies even if there is a strong view that the chosen conduct is self damaging.' from their website

Banks says there will be no consideration given to changing these laws while he is involved with ACT. So much for democracy or the beliefs of the party he is part of.It would be understandable if Banks was against humans behaving as humans do when it comes to altering consiousness, but I believe he owns a few hotels dispensing harmful mind altering substances, so his opposition cannot be on on health grounds. I feel then he is concerned about the effect law changes would have on his business and this would be anti free trade. The implication that he seeks election to use the power as a lawmaker to protect his business couild be described as corrupt. And that the primeminister coludes in this and seeks to assist him in this demonstrates John Keys morallity. Not really the sort of behavior we need running the country.